ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided new evidence, including an agreement for agricultural land sale (Rs. 51,00,000/-) and multiple conveyance deeds for further land sales (Rs. 27,50,000/-, Rs. 7,95,000/-, and Rs. 21,82,500/-), which were not fully examined by the CIT(A). Due to the need for verification of these documents at the AO level, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO to examine the presented evidence and re-decide the appeal.

The tribunal held that initiating reopening proceedings under Sections 148/147 solely for the purpose of verification is not sustainable in law, citing relevant judicial precedents. Consequently, the impugned reopening was quashed, and all corresponding additions were deemed academic.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, reducing the Rs. 20,00,000/- addition to Rs. 2,00,000/-, and clarified that Section 115BBE would not apply once the source of cash withdrawals was identified. The Revenue's appeal regarding the Rs. 12,99,00,000/- addition was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s finding that Sections 69 and 115BBE were not applicable as the assessee had declared the income from commodity trading and explained its source, which was accepted. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had explained the cash deposits as being from disclosed cash sales recorded in audited books of accounts, which were accepted by the revenue authorities without any defects being pointed out. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal held that section 69A cannot be invoked when the source of cash deposits is declared in accepted books. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to deal with the relevant factual matrix as required by section 250(6) and thus remitted the file back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh hearing. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the taxpayer with three effective opportunities to plead and prove all relevant facts, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal ruled that reopening assessment proceedings solely for the purpose of verification, especially when no verification was carried out during the initial assessment, is not legally sustainable. Citing High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the impugned reopening proceedings.

The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, deemed it appropriate to make a lump sum addition of Rs.2,50,000/- instead of the original Rs.10,97,300/-. This decision provides the assessee with a relief of Rs.8,47,300/-. The Tribunal also specified that this resolution should not be treated as a precedent for other cases.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, reducing the Rs. 20,00,000/- addition to Rs. 2,00,000/-, and clarified that Section 115BBE would not apply once the source of cash withdrawals was identified. The Revenue's appeal regarding the Rs. 12,99,00,000/- addition was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s finding that Sections 69 and 115BBE were not applicable as the assessee had declared the income from commodity trading and explained its source, which was accepted. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly deleted the additions made by the AO regarding the disallowance of one-fifth of the expenses, stating that the AO's original addition was rightly made. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal, effectively reinstating the disallowance.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for a de-novo assessment. The AO is directed to consider the assessee's new legal submission regarding the non-taxability of interest income amounting to Rs.3,35,31,966/- under section 11(5) read with 11(1)(d) as part of the Corpus Fund. Additionally, the AO must consider the pending decision of the CIT(E) concerning the condonation application for the belated filing of Form 10B.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC had failed to consider the Supreme Court's directions regarding the exclusion of limitation periods. Therefore, to ensure justice, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication under section 250(6), granting the assessee three effective opportunities to present their case.

The Tribunal ruled that reopening assessment proceedings solely for the purpose of verification, especially when no verification was carried out during the initial assessment, is not legally sustainable. Citing High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the impugned reopening proceedings.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for a de-novo assessment. The AO is directed to consider the assessee's new legal submission regarding the non-taxability of interest income amounting to Rs.3,35,31,966/- under section 11(5) read with 11(1)(d) as part of the Corpus Fund. Additionally, the AO must consider the pending decision of the CIT(E) concerning the condonation application for the belated filing of Form 10B.

The Tribunal ruled that reopening assessment proceedings solely for the purpose of verification, especially when no verification was carried out during the initial assessment, is not legally sustainable. Citing High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the impugned reopening proceedings.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that for an unabated assessment year (where the time limit under section 143(2) has expired), no additions can be made under sections 153A/153C without incriminating material specific to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction note and the assessment order did not refer to any such incriminating documents, thus the findings of the CIT(A) were sustainable based on the principle established in CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's appeal to condone the delay, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation, In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC), which excluded the period from 18.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (2013-14 & 2014-15), the additions were bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search. For abated assessment years (2015-16 to 2019-20), the appeals were partly allowed, with directions to adopt municipal value for Goa property and estimate rental income at 5% of investment for Gurugram properties.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (2013-14 & 2014-15), the additions were bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search. For abated assessment years (2015-16 to 2019-20), the appeals were partly allowed, with directions to adopt municipal value for Goa property and estimate rental income at 5% of investment for Gurugram properties.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) violated principles of natural justice by passing the order without considering the assessee's reply. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (2013-14 & 2014-15), the additions were bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search. For abated assessment years (2015-16 to 2019-20), the appeals were partly allowed, with directions to adopt municipal value for Goa property and estimate rental income at 5% of investment for Gurugram properties.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (2013-14 & 2014-15), the additions were bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search. For abated assessment years (2015-16 to 2019-20), the appeals were partly allowed, with directions to adopt municipal value for Goa property and estimate rental income at 5% of investment for Gurugram properties.

The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee a further opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) on merit. The issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with a direction to provide a hearing and consider evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee is permitted to place on record new documents, including Income Tax Returns from preceding assessment years, to support its contention of a consistent 1.75% profit margin. The AO is directed to consider these documents and provide a reasonable opportunity for submissions before reframing the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) violated principles of natural justice by passing the order without considering the assessee's reply. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (2013-14 & 2014-15), the additions were bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search. For abated assessment years (2015-16 to 2019-20), the appeals were partly allowed, with directions to adopt municipal value for Goa property and estimate rental income at 5% of investment for Gurugram properties.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (2013-14 & 2014-15), the additions were bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search. For abated assessment years (2015-16 to 2019-20), the appeals were partly allowed, with directions to adopt municipal value for Goa property and estimate rental income at 5% of investment for Gurugram properties.

The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedent, held that the transfer of the assessee's case between different Assessing Officers without a valid order under Section 127 of the Act constituted a jurisdictional error. Therefore, the entire assessment proceedings were found to be without basis and were quashed.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 were beyond the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction as the satisfaction note was recorded much later. For AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17, the addition based on a valuation report was deleted as it was not considered 'incriminating material' for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that interest u/s 234A is compensatory and not penal, and accrues only until the date of tax payment, not the date of filing the income tax return. Relying on Supreme Court and ITAT Pune precedents, the Tribunal ruled that interest ceases once the tax liability is paid, irrespective of the ITR filing date. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order was based on an erroneous understanding of the facts. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the NFAC's order and directed it to restore the appeal for disposal on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 were beyond the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction as the satisfaction note was recorded much later. For AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17, the addition based on a valuation report was deleted as it was not considered 'incriminating material' for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal condoned the 25-day delay in filing the appeals. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's grievance of not being heard and remanded the matter to the AO/CPC for fresh verification of employer/employee contributions and salary due dates, after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

Citing the Supreme Court's ruling on delayed EPF & ESIC deposits, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's grievance of being denied an opportunity of being heard. Given the alleged tax auditor's mistake and the AO's failure to verify salary due dates, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of contributions and salary due dates, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 were beyond the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction as the satisfaction note was recorded much later. For AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17, the addition based on a valuation report was deleted as it was not considered 'incriminating material' for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 were beyond the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction as the satisfaction note was recorded much later. For AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17, the addition based on a valuation report was deleted as it was not considered 'incriminating material' for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 were beyond the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction as the satisfaction note was recorded much later. For AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17, the addition based on a valuation report was deleted as it was not considered 'incriminating material' for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 were beyond the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction as the satisfaction note was recorded much later. For AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17, the addition based on a valuation report was deleted as it was not considered 'incriminating material' for the relevant assessment years.

The ITAT Delhi benches ruled that they lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal and cross-objections. The tribunal referred to its Standing Order and a Supreme Court decision, emphasizing that jurisdiction is determined by the situs of the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment, which was Lucknow.

The tribunal observed that notices were indeed sent to a wrong email address. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a de-novo adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to issue notices to the correct email ID as per Form 35, ensuring the assessee gets a reasonable opportunity to make submissions.

The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, after the assessee's representative submitted that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, dated 17.09.2024, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 60 Lakhs for tax effect in appeals. The Ld. CIT.DR for the Revenue admitted the circular's applicability. The tribunal, however, granted the Revenue the liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the circular is found to be inapplicable.

The Tribunal noted that AY 2011-12 was an "unabated" assessment year. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023), the Tribunal held that any addition in an unabated assessment must be based on seized or incriminating material. As there was no evidence that the Assessing Officer made the section 68 addition based on such material, the addition of Rs.13.16 lakhs was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio. It found that the AO committed a substantive error by not invoking Section 153C for the assessment year in question, which was covered by the proviso to Section 153C based on the date of receipt of incriminating documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the seized documents did not establish a direct co-relation with the assessment years in question. The satisfaction note recorded by the AO was found to be vague and not in compliance with the provisions of Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (2013-14 & 2014-15), the additions were bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search. For abated assessment years (2015-16 to 2019-20), the appeals were partly allowed, with directions to adopt municipal value for Goa property and estimate rental income at 5% of investment for Gurugram properties.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the seized documents did not establish a direct co-relation with the assessment years in question. The satisfaction note recorded by the AO was found to be vague and not in compliance with the provisions of Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the seized documents did not establish a direct co-relation with the assessment years in question. The satisfaction note recorded by the AO was found to be vague and not in compliance with the provisions of Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the seized documents did not establish a direct co-relation with the assessment years in question. The satisfaction note recorded by the AO was found to be vague and not in compliance with the provisions of Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the seized documents did not establish a direct co-relation with the assessment years in question. The satisfaction note recorded by the AO was found to be vague and not in compliance with the provisions of Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the seized documents did not establish a direct co-relation with the assessment years in question. The satisfaction note recorded by the AO was found to be vague and not in compliance with the provisions of Section 153C.